BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 732 OF 2024 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.37/2020 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, KHAMMAM Between:

R.Lakshmi, W/o R.Ravi Kumar, Aged about : 60 years, Occ.: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-1-88, Ranganayakula Gutta, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

…….Appellant/Complainant And:

State Bank of India, Bhadrachalam Branch, Opp.: CSI Church, Bank Street, Bhadrachalam, Rep. by its Manager.

……..Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : Sri R.V.N.S. Murthy.

Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party : M/s B.Pavan Kumar QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

MONDAY, THE 1 9^th DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL

1. The appeal is filed by the complainant, aggrieved by the dismissal order of District Consumer Commission, Khammam, dated 27.06.2024 in CC 37/2020.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party Bank since two years and having SB Account No.6209722251; that she was given an ATM card and it was operated by her only; that on 13.02.2019, 30.07.2019 and 25.09.2019 the amounts of Rs.50,000/- under 04 transactions; Rs.30,000/- under 02 transactions and Rs.30,000/- under 03 transactions were withdrawn from her account, without her knowledge and she came to know the same on 14.11.2019, when she got updated the passbook. As per the Statement of Account Rs.50,000/-; Rs.30,000/- and Rs.30,000/- i.e. in total Rs.1,10,000/- were withdrawn from her account; that immediately she made a complaint with SBI Bhadrachalam Branch but it was not been disposed off by them; that on the same day she made a complaint with the police authorities also; that later she made several complaints with Banking Ombudsman, RBI, who closed, the same on the ground that duplicate complaints shall not be made and/or that the complaint is to be made within the period of 03 days; that as she has not done any ATM transactions, she apprehend that there must be a mischief committed in the SBI main branch; that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, hence the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint, except those that are admitted; that the complainant is the customer and having ATM card issued by the opposite party; that the opposite party is no way concerned for the fraudulent transactions happened in her account; that the complainant has not withdrawn any single rupee from the opposite party, in fact, she has withdrawn, from the Customer Service Points (CSP) and the details are here under:-

(i) CPS 1 : Sayi Kiran Bojja, Code No. 1A66A092, Opp. Officers’ Club near Sub Collector Office, Bhadrachalam;

(ii) CPS 2 : Ch.Ratnakar, Code No.1A76C245, Opp.: Prabha Shbankar Hospitals, Shop No.10, Market Yard Complex, Charla Road, Bhdrachalam.

So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party; that the complainant has willingly filed a false case against the opposite party instead of CSP owners; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party; i.e. the CSP owners who are the necessary parties to this complaint. With this, requested to dismiss the complaint.

4. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex. A1 to A6. One Sri L.G.V.V.B.N. Achary, Chief Manager of Opposite Party filed affidavit on behalf of the opposite party and Ex.B1 is marked.

5. The Commission below, settled the following points for discussion viz..:

Whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for? If so, 

what relief?

6. Originally CC 37/2020 was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party preferred an appeal in FA 115/2022. Having heard both si